But it is. If you want to actually change that, go to Britain and lobby that it is changed.

Until that point, at least try to understand another person's argument. Meroe here works in the health industry and, last time I checked, she lives in the, as you so kindly put it, US of A, so stop throwing this "In Britain" garbage at her and please realize that she is, in fact, talking about how it works in the country in question. Thank you.
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

JJ - that is the response from you I now expect. I'm quite amazed at how you believe you speak with such authority on things you have no grassroots experience of. Unlike you, yes I do have experience of panicky 16 year old rape victims. I have experience of traumatized 9 year old rape victims. And I know exactly what happens in hospitals in these situations. Please JJ, tell us your personal experiences regarding this, that sees fit for you to try to convince me I know nothing of which I speak.

I wouldn't have joined in this discussion unless I knew what the hell I was talking about. Your sanctimonious attitude regarding my experience is what is downright insulting.

For your information, I've worked in the health and social work sector in Britain, Australia and the States - I live in the States. I'm one of those people who actually get their hands dirty in regards to the above scenario's.

Just for your information regarding the 'morning after pill', a lot of rape victims don't come forward immediately, so the morning after pill wouldn't be relevant anyway, she is aready pregnant. Oh but forgive me, I am DANGEROUSLY ARROGANT regarding this issue, because as a Catholic what the hell would I know about contraceptives anyway, huh?!

Anyway its a waste of time trying to explain things to you. You are just so convinced of your own authority in this matter, regardless of anybody else's hands-on experience, that I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

Quote:in the US a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription... (which calls for the question why you are a pharmacist if you refuse to hand out prescribed drugs that you have available).

Because some pharmacists may have the religious belief that the use of some drugs is immoral, even if they're legal to prescribe. Unless you want pharmacists to be forced to serve their potential customers regardless of whether they want to or not (i.e. slavery), they should be free to decline. Just like a restaurant or bar can decline a customer.
____________Eccentric Opinion

Quote: Teach your children whatever you want, but if your children are supposed to die because of your belief, superstitious or not, you can just as well pull the trigger.

When a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion for his child it would certainly not be done lightly. But since they believe blood transfusion are wrong they are looking out for the spiritual interests of the child. Most people believe that life is more than just the physical.

While you call the beliefs of followers of other religions superstitions, but they would say yours are the superstitious beliefs.

The fact is you can't prove JWs are wrong about blood transfusions. Doctors can certainly be wrong too. A doctor may say a patient will die without a blood transfusion and yet the patient may recover.

Quote:
Now, about Catholics. Obviously it is completely ok for Catholics to deal with contraception any way they want FOR THEMSELVES. But when they run a public hospital, shouldn't they then do what is called for them by the ethics and laws of their pofession and society, which is to HELP patients as best as possible, and not by the moral judgements of their personal belief or those of the head of their religion, respectively?

A person can't be acting ethically if he acts against his own beliefs. Doctors in the US are not required to go against their own convictions. Doctors should have freedom of religion too.

The official moral teaching of the Catholic church (which are considered to be infallible teachings by Catholicism) is that contraception is a "mortal sin" and also that cooperating with mortal sin is sin. So if a Catholic doctor prescribed contraception he would be guilty of mortal sin in the eyes of Catholicism. I already posted a link about that earlier in the thread.

Quote:
As far as the law goes, it cuts the Catholic hospitals, universities, etc, out of the loop. They do not have to provide plans that cover contraception at all. They are not forced to do a thing. Instead Insurance companies reach out to the people who work there and offer them a plan covering only contraceptives, and paid for by that insurance company.

No, that is not true. Obama says he will force the insurance companies to provide the contraception "for free." But no one actually believes the insurance companies will provide free contraception to the policy holders. The insurance company is in business to make money. The cost will be passed on to the employer and to other employees in the form of higher premiums for everyone.

Edit: Also, since when does the federal government have the right to require a business to provide free services? Obama believes the government can force citizens to buy products they don't want and to force businesses to provide free services/products. Bizarre.
____________Revelation

Insurance companies shouldn't really be covering contraception period, or for that matter a lot of other things they currently cover. It's kind of like car insurance covering carwashes, or homeowners insurance covering lawn care. It just drives premiums up. Health insurance should be for what it was originally intended for - protecting people from catastraphic injury - not helping them with cough medicine or routine aches and pains.

Health insurance companies should look toward auto insurance companies as a business model, but it's doubtful that will ever happen, not with the way the healthcare industry is currently set up.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

Contraceptives are already required to be covered by non-churches and have been since 2000. They were not complained about widely then, and people who had 8 years to remove it from law before the great big scary 'Kenyan Communist Muslim' did not. Blame Clin-ton and Boosh and their Republican controlled congresses for not scrapping it. Really, it's a matter of parties playing politics and since Obama is in the white house, probably for another term, the Republican party will complain about it until they get a person in the white house and suddenly, once more, they will clam up. It's a lot like Democrats and their criticism of spying on random Americans. They shut up REAL fast when Obama got into office. American politics are kind of a joke, one real party pretending to be two and making people follow one or the other. This is just another case of one half of that one party complaining loudly about something it honestly only pretends to care about. We lucked out that people were vocal enough that SOPA and PIPA failed but those are the types of bills that have bi-partisan support. (Like the Patriot act did originally and still does.)

Honestly. I think only Ron Paul could really clean up your government, but him doing so will also hurt your economy through massive austerity and it will kill the big banks that own the Federal Reserve (no more lending out money to themselves or making secret loans to other countries and companies without telling anybody, but charging the government for interest on the money printed anyway). I guess it's like when they break a bone in extra places to help it heal correctly.

Quote:In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

And as I said the other day about more than half the states already mandating this. Do State laws rather than Federal laws trump freedom of religion? The laws to ban every practice of Sharia law seem to indicate so. (Note, banning Sharia in its entirety also bans Kosher food, Circumcision, Gay Marriage, donating to your church and performing Prayer. All are a part of Sharia.)

Quote:The federal government has required non-religious institutions run by religious groups to offer birth control coverage since December 2000, and 28 states already have laws on the books requiring the same. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services modeled their "new" mandate on those existing laws; the only change made by the Obama administration was to require that the co-payment be eliminated.

What's more is that Viagra has been covered since the late 90s, and nobody in the church was complaining about being forced to provide coverage for boner pills (or at least not very vocally).

Also:

Quote:Obama believes the government can force citizens to buy products they don't want and to force businesses to provide free services/products. Bizarre.

The government negotiated with the insurance companies before hand and got them to buy into it first. Also a person may personally refuse this coverage anyway. Nobody is being forced to do anything. Also, since the church isn't paying for the benefit, the freedom of religion issue is moved to a free market issue. Does the government have the right to negotiate with companies to get them to agree to cover a tiny fraction of people? (A good number will refuse, others, men, will not be applicable) That is a good question. I would love to see more opinions on this.

Quote:Insurance companies shouldn't really be covering contraception period, or for that matter a lot of other things they currently cover.

I mostly agree with you, the issue though is that a company that doesn't provide the robust services that the others do would not be attractive to a lot of businesses and individuals. Not to mention one people get to the age they really need a lot of prescription drugs they are covered by the 2003 Medicare Advantage (I remember seeing American TV ads bragging about how it covered new special bath tubs, power wheel chairs and the like) and Medicare Part D expansion .

To actually change anything now, you'd have to mandate it to behave more like the auto insurance industry. It DOES suck that the US is a terrible country to get injured in due to insane hospital costs. So I guess that does drive up the costs of insurance compared to other countries. (Though I guess the higher costs could partially be private hospitals there going for higher profit margins than the private hospitals here. It DOES kind of suck that people with non-life threatening illnesses can't see price estimates online by hospital to make an informed choice about where they can get treated for less.)

Regardless, all of this discussion is now off-topic because the original topic was about the Catholic beliefs (and the forceful government making them do something they didn't want to) but now it's moved over to a market discussion. I say we segue over to another thread.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Quote:JJ - that is the response from you I now expect. ...
Just for your information regarding the 'morning after pill', a lot of rape victims don't come forward immediately, so the morning after pill wouldn't be relevant anyway, she is aready pregnant. Oh but forgive me, I am DANGEROUSLY ARROGANT regarding this issue, because as a Catholic what the hell would I know about contraceptives anyway, huh?!

Yeah, and that was more response I actually expected from you - I wouldn't have thought it possible, that you would come up with "many rape victims come too late anyway to make a difference". I mean, if you had a discussion about the quality of medical treatment of emergency accident victims, would you come with an argument that a lot of those are DOA anyway?
And, yes, you are spreading false information, which is not in the interest of the patients.

Of course you did NOT answer the question the Bible foundation for the no-contraceptives bull.

Gnomes, either you misunderstood me or you are wrong.
In Britain, a sixteen-year-old doesn't need a prescription - she can get ECs over the counter and for free. That's the law. Which means, a case described by me would be in a hospital only because of missing information (or an unconscious wish for help and comfort despite her words), not out of strict necessity to get ECs, except when she would want it at a time she couldn't get them anyplace else.

To repeat the most on-topic issue:

What passages in the Bible SUPPORT the no-contraception stance of the Catholic Church?

The stance itself is based on the conviction, that sex should always include at least a theoretical possibility to get pregnant, meaning, you must not have sex in a way that is GEARED to avoid pregnancy. That includes masturbation, anal and oral sex (the reason for those being "immoral), and it includes artificial contraceptive devices like condoms, pills and others. The Church allows measuring of temperature and contraception by abstinence.

Apart from the question of where the Bible says something like that, you'd have to frown immediately, considering eating and drinking. You might think, if sex must include a real possibility to get pregnant, than eating and drinking should include the real possibility to slate hunger and thirst. You can debate that, of course, but I think SPIRITS are something which do NOT include that possibility - there are, after all, religions that DO forbid alcohol. Considering the stance on sex - should eating and drinking, just for the pleasure of taste or intoxication, be a mortal sin as well? What about people who eat and then vomit the eaten stuff - isn't that the same thing as an abortion?

Now, I know, that sounds all a bit picky and strange - but what I actually wonder is the authority, those people are claiming for themselves in determining what is "a mortal sin" and what not, what is right for people to do "in God's view" and so on. Is there EVEN THE SLIGHTEST difference to those ancient religions and highpriests who claimed to speak the will of the gods and then used to come up with strange commandments or rules?

And isn't it obvious that in light of what the Church teaches about sex, love, contraception and family, the Church would also have had to teach a certain female authority in these things, because if you want a modicum of possible family planning, you need a) a solid knowledge about bodily functions, especially of the female bodily functions, and b) complete authority of women over male desires within the marriage, so that she not only can say, abstinence within the next week, but also the man agrees and not insists on the woman fulfilling her marital duties.

Quote: Teach your children whatever you want, but if your children are supposed to die because of your belief, superstitious or not, you can just as well pull the trigger.

When a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion for his child it would certainly not be done lightly. But since they believe blood transfusion are wrong they are looking out for the spiritual interests of the child. Most people believe that life is more than just the physical.

While you call the beliefs of followers of other religions superstitions, but they would say yours are the superstitious beliefs.

The fact is you can't prove JWs are wrong about blood transfusions. Doctors can certainly be wrong too. A doctor may say a patient will die without a blood transfusion and yet the patient may recover.

Elodin, I don't HAVE to prove it. In case where a belief would cost a life, don't you think, the burden of proof falls to the party that would want to sacrifice the life? Otherwise, what keeps me from saying, that God just have ordered me to sacrifice my son, like with Abraham and Isaak, and if I don't do it, something really terrible will happen? What keeps anyone from claiming that it's not neglect, but religious faith that kept you from visiting a doc with your sick children?

Quote:

Quote:
Now, about Catholics. Obviously it is completely ok for Catholics to deal with contraception any way they want FOR THEMSELVES. But when they run a public hospital, shouldn't they then do what is called for them by the ethics and laws of their pofession and society, which is to HELP patients as best as possible, and not by the moral judgements of their personal belief or those of the head of their religion, respectively?

A person can't be acting ethically if he acts against his own beliefs. Doctors in the US are not required to go against their own convictions. Doctors should have freedom of religion too.

The official moral teaching of the Catholic church (which are considered to be infallible teachings by Catholicism) is that contraception is a "mortal sin" and also that cooperating with mortal sin is sin. So if a Catholic doctor prescribed contraception he would be guilty of mortal sin in the eyes of Catholicism. I already posted a link about that earlier in the thread.

Yeah, we know what the Catholic Church teaches and declares as mortal sin. The question, however, is, on what authority? Everyone can claim everything - no problem. Now, what makes the Catholic Church an authority in these questions? Where is the connection with God's word? After all, if the Church would suddenly say something like, You must not eat cauliflower, you would expect a reasoning based on God's and especially JESUS'S teaching/words, and not some strange whim the Pope declares to be God's truth because he's the Pope and has authority.
A doctor, mind you, is obliged to the patients and his or her conscience, but a doctor is a doctor first and foremost, because there have been people who deliberately IGNORED the teachings of the church.
The Church has no business to make these claims. Nothing in the commandments says something about "Thou shalt not contracept", and also Jesus did not say anything about that.

Quote:And, yes, you are spreading false information, which is not in the interest of the patients.

Exactly what false information is that JJ. Please thrill us with your knowledge. Seeing as you accusing me of that is basically calling me a liar.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

Yes you do. You claim the belief of JWs about blood transfusion is a superstition. Prove it.

Quote:
In case where a belief would cost a life, don't you think, the burden of proof falls to the party that would want to sacrifice the life?

You keep making the false statement over and over that JW parents want to sacrifice their children. I've already addressed that. JWs don't engage in child sacrifice or approve of murdering babies, unlike certain pagan and atheist groups. Abortion is murder.

Also, what would you do about a child who is a JW and who does not want a blood transfusion? Would you go ahead and essentially rape him [pump him up with someone else's blood?]

Quote:
Yeah, we know what the Catholic Church teaches and declares as mortal sin. The question, however, is, on what authority?

First, atheists don't have the right to interpret the Bible for Catholics or make dogma for the Catholic church. I've already given some links that answer your questions. In order to be a Catholic you have to accept the authority of the Catholic church. The CC claims when when a pope teaches officially on matters of faith and morals that the teachings are infallible. The have Scriptures that they point to to support their claims. Of course I disagree with them, but his is not about what I believe the Bible says, but what the Catholic religion believes.

It is immoral and tyrannical and unconstitutional for the government to force Catholics to do or cooperate with the commitment of actions they believe to be immoral.

Quote:
Everyone can claim everything - no problem. Now, what makes the Catholic Church an authority in these questions?

The Catholic church is obviously the authority over their own dogma. Barrack Obama is not the authority over the dogma of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
The Church has no business to make these claims. Nothing in the commandments says something about "Thou shalt not contracept", and also Jesus did not say anything about that.

There are scriptures they point to for their doctrine, JJ. You are certainly not very knowledgeable about the Bible or Catholic teachings. Even if you were a Bible scholar, you still would not have the right to impose your own interpretation of the verses on the Catholic church.

Freedom of religion, JJ. There is more I want to say but I have to rush off to my evil capitalist pig activities.

"Prove that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are superstitions, JJ. You can't. You simply state that the superstitions of atheists are the truth. Most everyone who has ever lived has rejected the silly religion of atheism yet you want to foist it off as fact."

JW's presumption is that anyone's soul is in his/her blood. But in fact it contains another presumption: soul exists. These are not scintific presumptions, these are religious presumptions and exacly this is what makes them unprovable. And this is the reason why its just unfair to ask someone to prove against it.

If you say you know God exists, you cant prove it nor your opponent prove the other way around. Believe it or not.

But the society has lot of people with lot of religions, beliefs, so science is the only option to get some balance between the view of the society and the point of each religious people.

Atm bloodtransfusion is scientificly proved and accepted way to help some people to survive, but on the other hand it has not been proven that it cause some damage to the soul. Therefore it should be used every time, when there is a scientfic need.

Science is not religion. Religion needs to have an irrational decision to accept presumptions as basical facts, science doesnt. Science has presumptions which experimentally can be proven for anyone who has the time for checking them step by step. I do not say that its impossible the science will not say 2000 years from now that soul exists, just its not the case atm.

About religion of atheism. No such thing exists. We say that you can run a moral society without making the decision about the existance of God on the basis of science and common knowledge, we are not religious, we are ready to give up even this presumption in a rational dispute.

But because of the diversity of the people, diversity of religions the laws and basic rules for the state should be followed by all, and they must be neutral to the religions.

So if its clear that anyone has a right to get health care in case of a rape, then the state has to provide the neutral service to her/him, it must be organised that religious questions do not interfere in this procedure.

I believe that Mars is inhabited by vastly intelligent invisible flying crocodiles who command me to deny any type of surgery to anyone because his inner essence will escape and will be lost forever in the void (which is inhabited by invisible flying anti-crocodiles who devour lost inner essences and want to destroy the universe). In addition, my invisible crocodile lords strictly forbid any kind of medical aid to Christians because they consider them brainwashed servants of their evil adversaries. I am strongly against any types of surgical operations and medical help for Christians and demand my religious rights to be respected. My church of Marscrocodility is the ultimate authority on these matters. Prove me wrong or get out of my way, I have have to surgical operations to stop.

Quote:And, yes, you are spreading false information, which is not in the interest of the patients.

Exactly what false information is that JJ. Please thrill us with your knowledge. Seeing as you accusing me of that is basically calling me a liar.

I don't like repeating myself - you can find it in an earlier post, where I answered to your first answer to the case of the potntial rape victim.

What utter nonsense. For your information your so-called reply isn't fact. Stop believing you alone are correct, when you're not. What a lame response. You called me a liar, so now you prove to us all what I've lied about, otherwise retract your accusation. Prove what I've said is a lie.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

Meroe, in all fairness, religion may work that way, but real life doesn't.

YOU were the one claiming you could take EC up to a week after the act successfully WITH THE CONSEQUENCE hat you'd have a lot of time after such a rape fall kinds of other stuff, including journeying to other docs and hospitals.

Consequently YOU are the one who should bring prove for this claim, because if it was true you had a point.

However, everything you can read about ECs - there are different kinds and methods with different results and probabilities and times - say that you are wrong.

Quote:For both the progestin-only and Yuzpe regimens, the effectiveness of emergency contraception is highest when taken within 12 hours of intercourse and declines over time. While most studies of emergency contraception have only enrolled women within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, a 2002 study by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggested that reasonable effectiveness may continue for up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse.

When a Consultant Surgeon and other professional medical practitioners (of which you are not I believe), tell you and practice the usage that certain EC are good to be used up to a week (which is what I said) after intercourse, who do you believe? You and wikipedia??? or the professional. Really JJ, are you saying you know more than the medical professionals I work with. Tsk tsk.

You don't have the absolute answer, stop going on as though you do. And stop being so patronizing when people don't agree with you. And stop trying to twist what I say into some desperate attempt to discredit me (e.g. YOU were the one claiming you could take EC up to a week after the act successfully WITH THE CONSEQUENCE hat you'd have a lot of time after such a rape fall kinds of other stuff, including journeying to other docs and hospitals). As that is not exactly what I said, was it.

EC taken the day after intercourse can still fail. Like I said before, there is no absolutes. Nothing is 100% certain.

Ergo, I was not spreading untruths. You are just merely mistaken regarding your knowledge of this particular issue.

Don't bust a bloodvessel because of it.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

Meroe, again, with all due respect, yes, I trust Wikipedia AND THEIR SOURCES more than you AND YOUR WORD FOR IT. Yes, absolutely.

Because I don't seeyour sources. Also

Quote: And stop trying to twist what I say into some desperate attempt to discredit me (e.g. YOU were the one claiming you could take EC up to a week after the act successfully WITH THE CONSEQUENCE hat you'd have a lot of time after such a rape fall kinds of other stuff, including journeying to other docs and hospitals). As that is not exactly what I said, was it.

that was EXACTLY what yo said, because your point is, that there is so much time that a dtor doesnt need to act against their conscience or whatever and can send them to someone else - the emergency is no real emergency.
However, here is the wiki quote an, just for you, because the important thing isn't whether it's 5 days or 7;

Quote:For both the progestin-only and Yuzpe regimens, the effectiveness of emergency contraception is highest when taken within 12 hours of intercourse and declines over time. While most studies of emergency contraception have only enrolled women within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, a 2002 study by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggested that reasonable effectiveness may continue for up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse.

I think, that makes it clear there absolutely no reason to WASTE any time, because there is a sim relation of "the faster the help, the better the chances for success.
Ergo

Quote:
Ergo, I was not spreading untruths. You are just merely mistaken regarding your knowledge of this particular issue.

you should maybe question your attitude here, because it would seem to me that your attitude isn't in the best interest of the patients.

Of course, when it comes to the question of attititude of Catholic Hospitals with a view on contraceptives...
How strict are they with a view on their own personnel?
Do you really think that the people working there
a) all do not take contraceptives themselves
b) have no sex before or outside marriage
c) have only "straight sex" (that is, no oral or anal sex and no masturbation)?

And IF there IS personnel that doesn't follow one of those, what would that make them?

Quote:
You keep making the false statement over and over that JW parents want to sacrifice their children. I've already addressed that. JWs don't engage in child sacrifice or approve of murdering babies, unlike certain pagan and atheist groups. Abortion is murder.

Put in as many red herrings about abortion as you want, fact is, if JW parents are refusing a life-saving blood transfusion for their child and the child dies and could have been saved otherwise, they sacrificed the very real earthly life of their child on the altar of what is not more than their personal belief in connection with an unproven assumption about a very hypothetical afterlife.
See below for consequences.

Quote:
Also, what would you do about a child who is a JW and who does not want a blood transfusion? Would you go ahead and essentially rape him [pump him up with someone else's blood?]

I will gladly admit, that this is a very difficult question. If a child has been so massively infected by the personal belief of his/her parents, that, for whatever reason, the child rather wants to die than live, you would have to ask the question indeed, whether you would do the child a favor forcing him/her to live - the child might not be all too happy about what may be a Danaer-gift for him/her.
Without giving the matter too much thought here and just as a tentative suggestion, one solution might be to leave the parents (in all cases) their wish, but charge them with assist to suicide and forbid them by court to ever have children again apart from those they already have. Their choice - if they really believe in this stuff, they will make that personal sacrifice for the eternal soul of their beloved child, won't they?

Quote:

Quote:
Yeah, we know what the Catholic Church teaches and declares as mortal sin. The question, however, is, on what authority?

First, atheists don't have the right to interpret the Bible for Catholics or make dogma for the Catholic church. I've already given some links that answer your questions. In order to be a Catholic you have to accept the authority of the Catholic church. The CC claims when when a pope teaches officially on matters of faith and morals that the teachings are infallible. The have Scriptures that they point to to support their claims. Of course I disagree with them, but his is not about what I believe the Bible says, but what the Catholic religion believes.

It is immoral and tyrannical and unconstitutional for the government to force Catholics to do or cooperate with the commitment of actions they believe to be immoral.

Quote:
Everyone can claim everything - no problem. Now, what makes the Catholic Church an authority in these questions?

The Catholic church is obviously the authority over their own dogma. Barrack Obama is not the authority over the dogma of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
The Church has no business to make these claims. Nothing in the commandments says something about "Thou shalt not contracept", and also Jesus did not say anything about that.

There are scriptures they point to for their doctrine, JJ. You are certainly not very knowledgeable about the Bible or Catholic teachings. Even if you were a Bible scholar, you still would not have the right to impose your own interpretation of the verses on the Catholic church.

You make a couple of good points here, at least superficially. Of course the CC is the authority for their own dogma, and - that one from me - noone is forced to BE a Catholic, ast least once past a certain age (and leaving aside the effects of "parental teaching"). Of course the Catholic Church can hold any and all beliefs they deem to be right or prudent or useful or whatever. Insofar, you are right, that the discussion of whether the CC's dogmas are based on the Bible or not are indeed irrelevant.

However, to quote Kispagat's last sentence:

Quote:
So if its clear that anyone has a right to get health care in case of a rape, then the state has to provide the neutral service to her/him, it must be organised that religious questions do not interfere in this procedure.

Which is the actual problem here. Any Church can run an institution, if it's providing legal servives, but if it's LIMITING it's services, if it's "playing under its own rules" so-to-speak - and under rules people are not required to know - than this should be IRRELEVANT for public purposes: citizens habe a right to be treated like the LAW says, not like a religion says.

So that means, a Catholic hospital could never be acknowledged as serving the public, since it plays under ITS OWN rules, not under the rules of the PUBLIC. Which would mean, you'd need a public insitution AS WELL, to get the necessary amount of healthcare coverage per square mile.

As ridiculous as it sounds - in case the hospital would operate under public flag (that is, be a PUBLIC hospital for all purposes and no private clinic), there would have to be a smaller public institution near that hospital where the people could get all services the hospital would not render due to its religious affiliation...

Quote:
Put in as many red herrings about abortion as you want, fact is, if JW parents are refusing a life-saving blood transfusion for their child and the child dies and could have been saved otherwise, they sacrificed the very real earthly life of their child on the altar of what is not more than their personal belief in connection with an unproven assumption about a very hypothetical afterlife.
See below for consequences.

No, parents would not be "sacrificing" the child in that case. If their beliefs are correct (and you have no proof they are not) they would actually be SAVING the child. As Jesus himself said, "What does it profit you to gain the whole world but lose your own soul?" (paraphrase of Matthew 16:26.) Let materialistic atheist parents parent their children as if nothing but the material exists. Let theists parent their children with the view of spirit, soul, and body in view.

By the way, it is a doctor's job to advise the patient (or guardian) of the treatment options, NOT to decide for the patient what treatment is to be given.
____________Revelation